If the argument is that it's very easy to emotionally confuse language models and persons, than I reject that argument on the following grounds: No works of fi

If the argument is that it's very easy to emotionally confuse language models and persons, than I reject that argument on the following grounds: No works of fiction are persons. All "I" statements from the current generation of LLMs are works of fiction. Therefore, no "I" statements from the current generation of LLMs are persons. Premise 1 is in conflict with the author's premise that personhood can be ascribed at will; I'm happy agreeing to disagree on that. I do not think it ever makes sense to ascribe personhood to fictional characters (for any meaningful definition of personhood.)